Evolution is a Lie

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps I didn't. Please clarify. Because I've looked back at your question, and I honestly cannot figure out any real alternate meaning. If I've misread you, I'd like to correct that so I can give a more appropriate response.

I really don't know how else to ask it.

Weren't there animals around that witnessed the arrival of the first T. Rexes?

Why don't we "animals" witness any arrivals?

 

[Skaloop]

I really don't know how else to ask it.

Weren't there animals around that witnessed the arrival of the first T. Rexes?

Why don't we "animals" witness any arrivals?

But there wasn't exactly an "arrival" of T. rexes. There was a long, gradual transition. And it's not the sort of transition where you can point to a specific spot and say "AHA! That is the first T. rex!".

Are there new organisms? Absolutely; every organism is unique and new. But not noticeably enough to make it distinguishable from its immediate ancestors or descendants. At least, not for many many human lifetimes.

 

[AV1611VET]

But there wasn't exactly an "arrival" of T. rexes. There was a long, gradual transition. And it's not the sort of transition where you can point to a specific spot and say "AHA! That is the first T. rex!".

Then I submit that that confirms the fact that macroevolution cannot be observed in real time.

Also, just out of curiosity, how should I have asked that question?

 

[Skaloop]

Then I submit that that confirms the fact that macroevolution cannot be observed in real time.

I don't think I have ever said anything to the contrary. It can't be observed in real time, but it can be observed in stop time.

(I am assuming you mean macroevolution to mean changes above the species level, since we have observed speciation.)

Also, just out of curiosity, how should I have asked that question?

Not sure. It's not so much about the phrasing as it is about the basis of the question itself. But don't let's get into that too much; I'm over it.

 

[Split Rock]

Don't new genera emerge as time goes on?

In fact, don't they come and go?

Shouldn't something new come along in our time, on its way to extinction in about a million years?

What are they called? incipients or something?

I really don't know how else to ask it.

Weren't there animals around that witnessed the arrival of the first T. Rexes?

Why don't we "animals" witness any arrivals?

Then I submit that that confirms the fact that macroevolution cannot be observed in real time.

Also, just out of curiosity, how should I have asked that question?

Do you need to see Lucaspa's list of Observed Speciations again?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure. It's not so much about the phrasing as it is about the basis of the question itself. But don't let's get into that too much; I'm over it.

Okay -- thank you for the info.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you need to see Lucaspa's list of Observed Speciations again?

No, thanks --

 

[Skaloop]

I really don't know how else to ask it.

Weren't there animals around that witnessed the arrival of the first T. Rexes?

Why don't we "animals" witness any arrivals?

Sorry to revisit this, but it just came to me. Have you heard of ring species? It's a population of species that lives along the circumference of a lake or some other physical barrier. Picture it, for now, like the circle of a compass.

So the species lives in a circle around the lake. The ones on the west side cannot breed with the ones on the east side. They are too different. But, the ones on the west side can breed with the ones to the slight northwest. And those can breed with the ones to the slightly more northwest. And so it goes, each section along the circumference of the lake can breed with the neighbouring section. But east still can't breed with west. All the intermediates can breed with each other. So there is no distinguishing line between east and west. It's a continuum. There's no specific place where you can say there is a new arrival, since they can breed with their neighbours, but there is a distinction between the east and west sides.

Get it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Get it?

Got it, Skaloop -- thanks!

 

[dad]

.

More to the point really is, not if a creationist can do good science in some field but....does he have any data about "creation" or is it just his religious views

More to the point really is, not if a so called scientist can do good science in some field but....does he have any data about "creation" or is it just his religious views!!!!!? The answer is clear....

 

[sandwiches]

More to the point really is, not if a so called scientist can do good science in some field but....does he have any data about "creation" or is it just his religious views!!!!!? The answer is clear....

If science is religion, then it's the only religion in the world that has measurable and verifiable predictions and results regardless of belief in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If science is religion, then it's the only religion in the world that has measurable and verifiable predictions and results regardless of belief in it.

It goes far beyond that though: scientism.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It goes far beyond that though: scientism.

Assume it does -- can you refute it?

 

[MoonLancer]

Then I submit that that confirms the fact that macroevolution cannot be observed in real time.

Also, just out of curiosity, how should I have asked that question?

There have been some life forms with very short generations that have demonstrated macro evolution that scientists have observed over many years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Assume it does -- can you refute it?

Not my job -- that job is reserved for Someone else -- Who will do so when this dispensation ends.

Scientism -- specifically evolution -- is going to get much, much worse before it meets its end.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not my job -- that job is reserved for Someone else -- Who will do so when this dispensation ends.

So that's a "no."

Scientism -- specifically evolution -- is going to get much, much worse before it meets its end.

So that's a passive-aggressive "no."

 

[AV1611VET]

There have been some life forms with very short generations that have demonstrated macro evolution that scientists have observed over many years.

Cool -- let's see something substantial, like outside of a microscope.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Cool -- let's see something substantial, like outside of a microscope.

need help shifting the goalposts, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

So that's a "no."

That indeed is a 'no'.

 

[AV1611VET]

need help shifting the goalposts, AV?

Well, if you want me to believe I came from Jungle Jim's DNA, you'd better show me something besides what dances around in an electron microscope or a Petri dish.